Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But using that logic then wouldn't that mean that OPS isn't a good stat for batter's either? If it's good enough to evaluate batter it seems like it should be good enough to evaluate a pitcher. The same thing goes for if you bring up BABIP wouldn't it? If a pitcher doesn't have much control over it then it must mean a batter doesn't have much control over it either.

I started writing out a response that was nothing more than a guess, but, you know what? I don't know. You'll have to wait for someone more familiar with sabermetrics than I am to answer this.

You know how the general offensive stat listed around here for offense is OPS? How come the main stat to evaluate a pitcher isn't "OPS against" or something like that. It seems like looking at their opposing OPS would be a lot better than ERA or WHIP or K:BB.Thoughts?

Would you use K:BB for hitters as a valuable hitting metric? I'm not exactly following your logic.

Originally Posted by hoggin88

But using that logic then wouldn't that mean that OPS isn't a good stat for batter's either? If it's good enough to evaluate batter it seems like it should be good enough to evaluate a pitcher.

Again, would we use tRA for hitters?

The same thing goes for if you bring up BABIP wouldn't it? If a pitcher doesn't have much control over it then it must mean a batter doesn't have much control over it either.

Incorrect. You're assuming way too much. Hitters have shown that they can control their BABIP, in the same way they can control HRs, singles, 2B, 3Bs, and even RBOEs. It's all a function of their skill, or particular skills (3B = speed, HR = power, etc.). We can't say the same about pitchers, which is why we don't use OPS.

Would you use K:BB for hitters as a valuable hitting metric? I'm not exactly following your logic.

Well some people have used K:BB for evaluating hitters, but I don't know how useful it is.

Again, would we use tRA for hitters?

Fair enough.

Incorrect. You're assuming way too much. Hitters have shown that they can control their BABIP, in the same way they can control HRs, singles, 2B, 3Bs, and even RBOEs. It's all a function of their skill, or particular skills (3B = speed, HR = power, etc.). We can't say the same about pitchers, which is why we don't use OPS.

So you're saying hitters can control their BABIP at least to an extent. I guess I don't understand why we say this is true, but when talking about pitchers all of the sudden we act like hits are just luck and the pitcher has no control over them.

The pitcher pitches the ball and the batter has control over whether that ball is going to be a 2B 3B etc., but the pitcher doesn't have control over it? Some pitchers give up fewer hits right? Some pitchers give up fewer or more home runs or even just more line drives than others. Wouldn't this be saying that's all luck?

I'm just trying to understand this better. Should we not use H/9 either?

In case you weren't aware, there is now a Religion Forum here. All high-quality discussion welcome!

Well some people have used K:BB for evaluating hitters, but I don't know how useful it is.

Fair enough.

So you're saying hitters can control their BABIP at least to an extent. I guess I don't understand why we say this is true, but when talking about pitchers all of the sudden we act like hits are just luck and the pitcher has no control over them.

The pitcher pitches the ball and the batter has control over whether that ball is going to be a 2B 3B etc., but the pitcher doesn't have control over it? Some pitchers give up fewer hits right? Some pitchers give up fewer or more home runs or even just more line drives than others. Wouldn't this be saying that's all luck?

I'm just trying to understand this better. Should we not use H/9 either?

No. A pitcher doesn't have control over his defense, ballpark and other factors.

Hitters have the distinction of having a certain type of swing. Pull hitter, slap hitter, etc. They have speed on their side as well (Ichiro). For pitchers, they face all of these guys and they all face the same guys, so over time it evens out.

No. A pitcher doesn't have control over his defense, ballpark and other factors.

Hitters have the distinction of having a certain type of swing. Pull hitter, slap hitter, etc. They have speed on their side as well (Ichiro). For pitchers, they face all of these guys and they all face the same guys, so over time it evens out.

So a pitcher pitches a ball. His job is to not let a batter hit it, or at least not hit it well. So he wants a certain placement, speed, and possibly break to the pitch. If he does that well, then he won't give up as many hits right? And the hits he does give up will be for fewer total bases than an inferior pitcher in general right? And if he has very good command he won't walk as many either.

It seems like using your argument it means that pitchers pretty much just throw based on luck. I know that's not the case, so I'm trying to understand it better. Although so far I'm not following 100%. I know they don't have control over their defense or ballpark but neither do batters. Sometimes batters get lucky or unlucky yet we generally list OPS as a main stat. Pitchers also get lucky or unlucky sometimes with defense and such, so I don't see where the big difference is.

In case you weren't aware, there is now a Religion Forum here. All high-quality discussion welcome!

So a pitcher pitches a ball. His job is to not let a batter hit it, or at least not hit it well. So he wants a certain placement, speed, and possibly break to the pitch. If he does that well, then he won't give up as many hits right? And the hits he does give up will be for fewer total bases than an inferior pitcher in general right? And if he has very good command he won't walk as many either.

It seems like using your argument it means that pitchers pretty much just throw based on luck. I know that's not the case, so I'm trying to understand it better. Although so far I'm not following 100%. I know they don't have control over their defense or ballpark but neither do batters. Sometimes batters get lucky or unlucky yet we generally list OPS as a main stat. Pitchers also get lucky or unlucky sometimes with defense and such, so I don't see where the big difference is.

That's not what I'm saying. You almost had it right. "His job is to not let a batter hit it, or at least not hit it well." Yes. All he can control is from when he lets the ball go till the batter swings. The batter will either K, BB, get HBP or hit a GB, FB, LD or HR. His job is to avoid walks, line drives, walk as few as possible and have more groundballs than flyballs.

As for OPS against. Sure it can be used, but it's very ballpark dependent, and a pitcher doesn't have much control of whether balls are a single, double or triple. Why should he be punished because his defense has no range, no arm, or the batter is quick. Or maybe he has large gaps at his ballpark. I think that's the best way to explain it.

Well some people have used K:BB for evaluating hitters, but I don't know how useful it is.

It doesn't tell you anything as a performance metric. It's used as a measure of plate discipline.

So you're saying hitters can control their BABIP at least to an extent. I guess I don't understand why we say this is true, but when talking about pitchers all of the sudden we act like hits are just luck and the pitcher has no control over them.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Hitters have shown that they can control their BABIPs; it's a function of different skills, whether it be speed (Ichiro), how hard they hit the ball (which could be due to their bat speed), etc. Check out Manny Ramirez, Pujols, Ichiro, and even Pierre (speed) to see what I'm talking about. Then look at Juan Uribe or Bengie Molina. It's a small sample size, but it works to illustrate my point.

The pitcher pitches the ball and the batter has control over whether that ball is going to be a 2B 3B etc., but the pitcher doesn't have control over it?

Yes. Hitters have shown year to year correlation in the total of these events. Pitchers don't, with the exception of HRs.

Some pitchers give up fewer hits right?

And this is usually due to the amount of Balls in play they give up. If two pitchers have identical BABIPs, but pitcher A gave up 300 BIP, and pitcher B gave up 250 BIP, then pitcher B will give up less hits. Pitcher B will usually have more strikeouts, too.

Some pitchers give up fewer or more home runs or even just more line drives than others. Wouldn't this be saying that's all luck?

Why are you merging these events together? If something is out of a pitcher's immediate control, then that does not mean every event has to be out of their control.

I'm just trying to understand this better. Should we not use H/9 either?

It doesn't tell you anything as a performance metric. It's used as a measure of plate discipline.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Hitters have shown that they can control their BABIPs; it's a function of different skills, whether it be speed (Ichiro), how hard they hit the ball (which could be due to their bat speed), etc. Check out Manny Ramirez, Pujols, Ichiro, and even Pierre (speed) to see what I'm talking about. Then look at Juan Uribe or Bengie Molina. It's a small sample size, but it works to illustrate my point.

Yes. Hitters have shown year to year correlation in the total of these events. Pitchers don't, with the exception of HRs.

And this is usually due to the amount of Balls in play they give up. If two pitchers have identical BABIPs, but pitcher A gave up 300 BIP, and pitcher B gave up 250 BIP, then pitcher B will give up less hits. Pitcher B will usually have more strikeouts, too.

Why are you merging these events together? If something is out of a pitcher's immediate control, then that does not mean every event has to be out of their control.

Nope. Or WHIP.

I was just wondering if you consider the type of hit, e.g. a ground ball line drive or fly ball, a pitcher gives up to be luck or skill on their part. Because a pitcher who gives up more line drives is most likely going to give up more runs. But is the type of hit in that sense related to either the batter or pitcher's ability? Or am I even making sense?

I think I'm starting to understand most of what you're saying though. Thanks for hanging with me.

In case you weren't aware, there is now a Religion Forum here. All high-quality discussion welcome!

ISO stands for Isolated Power. It's basically SLG-BA, a measure of power. The more accurate version adjusts 3B as the same TB as 2B when measuring ISO as triples don't necessarily imply more power than a 2B, just more speed.

bRAA is batting Runs Above Average. You can really use it for any offensive production stat (OPS, EqA, wOBA), but it's main interpretation is with wOBA. You multiply RV/PA by PA. The entire equation is PA*(wOBA-lgwOBA)/1.15.

ISO stands for Isolated Power. It's basically SLG-BA, a measure of power. The more accurate version adjusts 3B as the same TB as 2B when measuring ISO as triples don't necessarily imply more power than a 2B, just more speed.

bRAA is batting Runs Above Average. You can really use it for any offensive production stat (OPS, EqA, wOBA), but it's main interpretation is with wOBA. You multiply RV/PA by PA. The entire equation is PA*(wOBA-lgwOBA)/1.15.

ISO stands for Isolated Power. It's basically SLG-BA, a measure of power. The more accurate version adjusts 3B as the same TB as 2B when measuring ISO as triples don't necessarily imply more power than a 2B, just more speed.

This is ISOp isn't it..for "isolated power"?

And then ISOd is OBP-AVG, for "isolated discipline"?

I don't remember which letters you capitalize in it, but the point is there.

In case you weren't aware, there is now a Religion Forum here. All high-quality discussion welcome!